Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 34 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15228368
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog why doesn't the implication follow? Bodily autonomy is an example of personal liberty, isn't it?



Can you explain how bodily autonomy must necessarily follow from the text you quoted?
#15228369
Maybe I am wrong, and you can correct me, but it seems that disposing of your body as you wish is an example of personal liberty.

Of course, this is not an absolute right. Personal liberty itself isn't.
#15228375
@wat0n

Since you cannot explain how these quotes support your claim, this claim is not supported and can therefore be dismissed as speculation.

Since that is the case, there is no reason to question my argument any more.

Moving on, we see that the USA should emulate its more developed neighbours.

This means not only directly recognizing the personal integrity and bodily autonomy of all residents by getting rid of all laws restricting abortion, but also providing support such as free healthcare for expectant parents, nutritional supplement programs, paid parental and maternity leave, subsidised daycare, and other measures that help give prospective parents more choices.
#15228377
@Pants-of-dog my interpretation is consistent with case law in the US (including Roe v Wade, as it's part of the right to privacy) and abroad, also, I don't need to support a particular case that follows from the general one.

Wake me up when all Canadian Provinces adjust to the Roe v Wade standard.
#15228382
wat0n wrote:@XogGyux in all fairness, though, it would be good to see how the data looks like when we limit the analysis to states that allow abortion at any stage of the pregnancy.

I don't think playing the numbers game would make the opposite point any more sound. Double it, tripple it even. 3% of ~700k abortions, 20k late terms. Let's say a high number of these are not really "indicated" and done by some sketchy doctors, irresponsible mothers and ancillary staff that also have questionable morals to not whistleblow on the whole operation. That still just makes at most, in this crazy scenario, a few thousand events a year in the whole US. Do you think it is reasonable to violate body autonomy of ~700k women for this? Do you think it is worth forcing a mother to go through a term pregnancy for a stillbirth "baby" or a live baby that is only going to last hours, days, weeks? Do you think it is worth forcing the pregnancy of a drug user mother with HIV or Hepatitis to have this unloved baby?
There are plenty of kids that get sexually molested by their uncles, do you think we should castrate all males that have a nephew/niece that is underage to prevent child molestation?

In the US, there are a lot of single-issue voters. Abortion is one of those things that have millions of single-issue voters. Billions of USD are spent by both parties on this issue. Again, if the issue was about saving lives... saving innocent lives... do you have an idea of how many millions of kids (not fetuses, kids, actual kids, with personalities, with memories with histories to tell you, with mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, girlfriends, pets) can be saved with all this money directed at actually saving lives instead of just being a headache to your liberal newyorker/californian neightboor? :lol:
#15228385
@XogGyux the castration analogy is a pretty bad one, though. Just punish the abusers.

I think the most likely outcome, if Roe v Wade is indeed overturned, is that states will be able to ban abortion after the 1st trimester. As for banning it before, I already stated my position: It depends on whether fetuses are people or not, leaving aside cases to save the mother from risk to life or limb, including cases where the baby will not live long if the pregnancy is carried to term.
#15228386
wat0n wrote:@XogGyux the castration analogy is a pretty bad one, though. Just punish the abusers.

Let's wait for the child to be molested then :lol: ?
Joke aside.
Read whole quote in context. The analogy is not comparing abusers with all abortions but rather comparing abuser vs abusers of a system of abortion that allows abortions up to term in which a subset of abortions are deemed inappropriate. Thus an inappropriate abortion is analogous to an inappropriate sexual advance on a minor. In other words, in this analogy, the doctor/patient/clinic abusing such system should be punished after committing the transgretion, rather than having some sort of a priori ban on the procedure that also affects many legitimate cases of abortions (in my analogy, non-perverted uncles). The analogy is sound.
Last edited by XogGyux on 20 May 2022 04:07, edited 1 time in total.
#15228387
XogGyux wrote:Let's wait for the child to be molested then :lol: ?


Actually, yes, if you don't know the uncle is a pedo it makes perfect sense not to do anything. Presumption of innocence and all that :eh:
#15228388
wat0n wrote:Actually, yes, if you don't know the uncle is a pedo it makes perfect sense not to do anything. Presumption of innocence and all that :eh:

I edited my post, please review, you answered before I finished.
#15228389
wat0n wrote:I think the most likely outcome, if Roe v Wade is indeed overturned, is that states will be able to ban abortion after the 1st trimester. As for banning it before, I already stated my position: It depends on whether fetuses are people or not, leaving aside cases to save the mother from risk to life or limb, including cases where the baby will not live long if the pregnancy is carried to term.

This is a useless noncommittal answer.
We discussed this before, there is nothing magical that happens right after the end of the first trimester nor does a fetus become a person at any determined stage. But that is beside the point. A person, even a fully grown one, should not override the body autonomy of another.
#15228390
XogGyux wrote:Let's wait for the child to be molested then :lol: ?
Joke aside.
Read whole quote in context. The analogy is not comparing abusers with all abortions but rather comparing abuser vs abusers of a system of abortion that allows abortions up to term in which a subset of abortions are deemed inappropriate. Thus an inappropriate abortion is analogous to an inappropriate sexual advance on a minor. In other words, in this analogy, the doctor/patient/clinic abusing such system should be punished after committing the transgretion, rather than having some sort of a priori ban on the procedure that also affects many legitimate cases of abortions (in my analogy, non-perverted uncles). The analogy is sound.


Let's assume the fetus is a person for a sec. In which cases can most people agree abortion would not be perverted?

I think the list would include saving the mother from "loss of life or limb", when the fetus isn't really expected to live for long ("deformities incompatible with life", it's just an extension of the former considering the risks involved in the delivery) and rape (personally though I'd make the rapist face the legal consequences of the abortion in this case, not the victim, but the agreement would be that the victim should indeed have the right to terminate the pregnancy). What else?

Now assume the fetus isn't a person. Now, I'd say the public would overwhelmingly agree that on-demand abortion before the 2nd trimester is okay. Possibly most would also agree with allowing on-demand abortion before viability as well. After viability it gets murkier since there are, in principle, options for terminating pregnancy that give the fetus a chance to live (we can discuss how to precisely define viability if you want) but I guess many would still be okay with on-demand abortion in this case too.
#15228397
wat0n wrote:Let's assume the fetus is a person for a sec. In which cases can most people agree abortion would not be perverted?

Uhm. That sounds like an awful lot of murder investigations that we would have to be doing. If fetus are people, and about 20% of all pregnancies (probably more) end up in spontaneous abortion, with the US having 4M birth per year, that means there is well over 1 million SPONTANEOUS abortions. That is a lot of mourning and a lot of mulder investigations that we would have to be doing to ensure that 1 million people did not meet their untimely demise due to some sort of negligent indiscretion by the mother right? You took the wrong antibiotic before you knew you were pregnant? Jail time... You exercised too much releasing an ungodly amount of hormones and molecules that made it inhospitable to the person growing on you? Jail time. Assuming that a fetus is a person does not solve your point, it only adds layers of complexity that you cannot really deal with. Again, while at the same time not coming up with a solid reason to explain why 1 person can violate the body autonomy of another. Furthermore, as I have said before, a fetus, certainly during the whole first half of the pregnancy is physically incapable of having any sort of consciousness, probably not even after birth. Arguing a fetus that has never had consciousness is a person is a hard task, that is, at the end of the road, you still have to prove why a person can override body autonomy of other.

I think the list would include saving the mother from "loss of life or limb", when the fetus isn't really expected to live for long ("deformities incompatible with life", it's just an extension of the former considering the risks involved in the delivery) and rape (personally though I'd make the rapist face the legal consequences of the abortion in this case, not the victim, but the agreement would be that the victim should indeed have the right to terminate the pregnancy). What else?

That all sounds like the kind of shit you would read from a fairy tale book. Reality is messy. Even the best doctors cannot predict outcomes. When I admit patients to the hospital I have the "code question". Basically, I need to document "code status" for a patient in case there is an emergency we know beforehand what to do. It goes something like this "If your heart were to stop, essentially you die, would you want us to do CPR and try to bring you back to life, and potentially put a plastic tube down your throat to connect you to a machine that would breathe to you to try to revive you?". Many patients answer "yes but only if I am not going to be a vegetable" and then I have to explain to this patient that during a code, we won't necessarily know what will be the outcome of it at the end, when you die, your blood flow to the brain is impaired, if we are able to revive you, depending on how long you died for and how good our CPR was, etc and what other medical problems you have... that would determine the degree of cerebral damage and "how much of a vegetable" you might end up having (being). In other words, we deal with uncertainty all the time. Who is going to be deciding what percentage of "death" and or "limb loss" is acceptable? Maternal mortality in the US is already 20 in 100,000 live births, so that is already a risk of dying from just having a delivery. So technically speaking all pregnancies already carry a risk of death, a small, but real risk of death. So according to you, someone would have to come up with numbers and scenarios that would make it OK to proceed if they cross this arbitrary threshold. What is it going to be? more than 10% of woman dying good enough to perform an abortion? Or perhaps we need to go with the "coin flip" or 51% chances of dying and now you are entitled to the abortion? Perhaps not even that, perhaps we need more certainty, perhaps we need to be 90%+ sure that you will die for us to allow an abortion? Who the fuck would be choosing these numbers?

Now assume the fetus isn't a person.

I don't have to. They are not people.

After viability it gets murkier since there are, in principle, options for terminating pregnancy that give the fetus a chance to live (we can discuss how to precisely define viability if you want) but I guess many would still be okay with on-demand abortion in this case too.

Viability is a terrible way to make the decision around. Who is going to make the decision of what is "viable"? Again, you throw these terms as if they were some sort of milestones that can be measured, they cannot. You don't become "a person" at some date on your gestational age and/or become "viable" on the 127th day and 4 hours 40mins and 26 seconds.
Viability is a fluid variable that will be affected by the resources available, willingness of the parents to push for treatment and/or accept complications and/or disability, technology (present and future) and many other variables that we don't even know yet. Arbitrarily choosing a "viability date" today would only make it obsolete in a couple decades as our technology improves, and simply legislating "viability" is kicking the issue back to courts and judges to decide what constitutes viability.
#15228401
XogGyux wrote:Uhm. That sounds like an awful lot of murder investigations that we would have to be doing. If fetus are people, and about 20% of all pregnancies (probably more) end up in spontaneous abortion, with the US having 4M birth per year, that means there is well over 1 million SPONTANEOUS abortions. That is a lot of mourning and a lot of mulder investigations that we would have to be doing to ensure that 1 million people did not meet their untimely demise due to some sort of negligent indiscretion by the mother right? You took the wrong antibiotic before you knew you were pregnant? Jail time... You exercised too much releasing an ungodly amount of hormones and molecules that made it inhospitable to the person growing on you? Jail time. Assuming that a fetus is a person does not solve your point, it only adds layers of complexity that you cannot really deal with. Again, while at the same time not coming up with a solid reason to explain why 1 person can violate the body autonomy of another. Furthermore, as I have said before, a fetus, certainly during the whole first half of the pregnancy is physically incapable of having any sort of consciousness, probably not even after birth. Arguing a fetus that has never had consciousness is a person is a hard task, that is, at the end of the road, you still have to prove why a person can override body autonomy of other.


Well, I don't think any of those cases would be prosecuted by anyone. As you said, no one would know that those abortions took place and in any event would be seen as accidents. Those would not be seen as homicide (murder requires intent), but as tragic deaths.

Furthermore, a ban on abortion would probably not carry over retroactively.

XogGyux wrote:That all sounds like the kind of shit you would read from a fairy tale book. Reality is messy. Even the best doctors cannot predict outcomes. When I admit patients to the hospital I have the "code question". Basically, I need to document "code status" for a patient in case there is an emergency we know beforehand what to do. It goes something like this "If your heart were to stop, essentially you die, would you want us to do CPR and try to bring you back to life, and potentially put a plastic tube down your throat to connect you to a machine that would breathe to you to try to revive you?". Many patients answer "yes but only if I am not going to be a vegetable" and then I have to explain to this patient that during a code, we won't necessarily know what will be the outcome of it at the end, when you die, your blood flow to the brain is impaired, if we are able to revive you, depending on how long you died for and how good our CPR was, etc and what other medical problems you have... that would determine the degree of cerebral damage and "how much of a vegetable" you might end up having (being). In other words, we deal with uncertainty all the time. Who is going to be deciding what percentage of "death" and or "limb loss" is acceptable? Maternal mortality in the US is already 20 in 100,000 live births, so that is already a risk of dying from just having a delivery. So technically speaking all pregnancies already carry a risk of death, a small, but real risk of death. So according to you, someone would have to come up with numbers and scenarios that would make it OK to proceed if they cross this arbitrary threshold. What is it going to be? more than 10% of woman dying good enough to perform an abortion? Or perhaps we need to go with the "coin flip" or 51% chances of dying and now you are entitled to the abortion? Perhaps not even that, perhaps we need more certainty, perhaps we need to be 90%+ sure that you will die for us to allow an abortion? Who the fuck would be choosing these numbers?


Doctors can. This is something that can definitely be agreed to just as all jurisdictions that allow abortion to save a mother's life at any stage of pregnancy do.

Probably a risk greater than that of a normal pregnancy (taking into account the uncertainty of the risk estimate, e.g. the death rate + 2 or 3 sigma) would be enough.

XogGyux wrote:I don't have to. They are not people.


According to you. Even among philosophers there would be disagreement on whether they qualify as persons or not. You asked elsewhere for a definition of "person", well, I did some research and fetuses may be persons according to some approaches while under others they are not:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:Personhood. What is it to be a person, as opposed to a nonperson? What have we people got that nonpeople haven’t got? More specifically, we can ask at what point in our development from a fertilized egg there comes to be a person, or what it would take for a chimpanzee or a Martian or an electronic computer to be a person, if they could ever be. An ideal account of personhood would be a definition of the word person, taking the form ‘Necessarily, x is a person at time t if and only if … x … t …’, with the blanks appropriately filled in. The most common answer is that to be a person at a time is to have certain special mental properties then (e.g. Baker 2000: ch. 3). Others propose a less direct connection between personhood and mental properties: for example that to be a person is be capable of acquiring those properties (Chisholm 1976: 136f.), or to belong to a kind whose members typically have them when healthy and mature (Wiggins 1980: ch. 6).


The minimum conditions I posted in the other thread would be in line with all the definitions mentioned here. But they are clearly not enough.

Out of curiosity, why would a newborn be a person but a fetus the day before birth wouldn't? Sounds just as arbitrary if you ask me.

XogGyux wrote:Viability is a terrible way to make the decision around. Who is going to make the decision of what is "viable"? Again, you throw these terms as if they were some sort of milestones that can be measured, they cannot. You don't become "a person" at some date on your gestational age and/or become "viable" on the 127th day and 4 hours 40mins and 26 seconds.
Viability is a fluid variable that will be affected by the resources available, willingness of the parents to push for treatment and/or accept complications and/or disability, technology (present and future) and many other variables that we don't even know yet. Arbitrarily choosing a "viability date" today would only make it obsolete in a couple decades as our technology improves, and simply legislating "viability" is kicking the issue back to courts and judges to decide what constitutes viability.


This is something that can also be operationalized. It can go from "survival probability > 0" all the way to "survival probability after induced birth without any reasonably foreseeable health problems close to 1".
#15228471
wat0n wrote:Out of curiosity, why would a newborn be a person but a fetus the day before birth wouldn't? Sounds just as arbitrary if you ask me.

Well the nervous system of a developing human is not capable of becoming conscious for the first 20weeks, it might not even be capable of even feeling pain. After that, some development occurs that could potentially make it possible. However, consciousness is not likely until after birth. Why? Well, the hormonal and biochemical environment in the womb makes it so that for whole of pregnancy, the fetus is asleep/sedated. There are high concentrations of sedating hormones and high concentrations of CO2 which is also sedating. It is not until the first breath and scream during delivery that the baby is first awake, and even so it is only for a few mins and then falls asleep.
Imagine you create an intelligent machine. For the first 20~ weeks, you did not even install the microprocessors. Would you argue that this machine is conscious at any point during those few weeks? Then imagine that on week 21 you start installing the microprocessors, but you don't power it up until around week 40. What is your confidence that for those 40 years you had a machine that was conciouns?

This is something that can also be operationalized. It can go from "survival probability > 0" all the way to "survival probability after induced birth without any reasonably foreseeable health problems close to 1".

Wow how vague, it does not look like you have a plan at all :lol: .



@wat0n
Let's try a different angle.
How strongly do you feel we should force a transfusion on a patient that declines it for religious reasons (for instance jehowa's) that is pregnant and it is almost certain to lose pregnancy if does not get a transfusion?
#15228474
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”


― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
#15228497
XogGyux wrote:Well the nervous system of a developing human is not capable of becoming conscious for the first 20weeks, it might not even be capable of even feeling pain. After that, some development occurs that could potentially make it possible. However, consciousness is not likely until after birth. Why? Well, the hormonal and biochemical environment in the womb makes it so that for whole of pregnancy, the fetus is asleep/sedated. There are high concentrations of sedating hormones and high concentrations of CO2 which is also sedating. It is not until the first breath and scream during delivery that the baby is first awake, and even so it is only for a few mins and then falls asleep.
Imagine you create an intelligent machine. For the first 20~ weeks, you did not even install the microprocessors. Would you argue that this machine is conscious at any point during those few weeks? Then imagine that on week 21 you start installing the microprocessors, but you don't power it up until around week 40. What is your confidence that for those 40 years you had a machine that was conciouns?


I don't think that analogy works. Are you really saying that it makes such a big difference for the fetus' development if the woman goes to labor tomorrow as opposed as if she did today?

Even if you think 20 weeks is too premature for a fetus to be viable, you can just operationalize your standard and take it from there.

XogGyux wrote:Wow how vague, it does not look like you have a plan at all :lol: .


That's because I accept the definition of "viability" might be too ambiguous. But it's indeed possible to make it more precise.

It's no different from other legal definitions based on human development such as reaching adulthood. Although we can agree about what means for a person to be an adult, it may be necessary to decide on a concrete way to operationalize this such a hard age cutoff.

XogGyux wrote:@wat0n
Let's try a different angle.
How strongly do you feel we should force a transfusion on a patient that declines it for religious reasons (for instance jehowa's) that is pregnant and it is almost certain to lose pregnancy if does not get a transfusion?


Does this situation entail a risk of loss of life or grievous harm for the pregnant person?

Pants-of-dog wrote:“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”


― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart


And yet all of those issues are still not comparable with something like infanticide, which is what people who don't like abortion would most directly compare the procedure with. There's a big difference between saying the government isn't responsible for your children and saying infanticide should be a parental choice.
#15228507
wat0n wrote:I don't think that analogy works. Are you really saying that it makes such a big difference for the fetus' development if the woman goes to labor tomorrow as opposed as if she did today?

Development? None. However we are not talking about development at this point. To understand you have to realize of the difference between physical capacity and functional capacity. A computer might be physically capable of accessing the internet, however, even though all the components might be present, if the computer does not have electricity, it is functionally incapable of accessing the internet.
Likewise, a 37 week fetus might be functionally capable of having some degree of consciousness (and even this is debatable, we don't know for sure). However, for as long as it is within the environment of the uterus, with high levels of sedating hormones and high CO2 which basically keeps it asleep through the pregnancy, this fetus is functionally incapable of having consciousness. The same way you are functionally incable of having consciousness while on an operating room receiving anesthesia, the same way a computer is functionally incapable of accessing the internet while deprived of electricity.
Up to the time of birth, a fetus is either physically, functional or BOTH incapable of having consciousness. I'd argue you cannot be considered to be a person if you have never been conscious at all.

That's because I accept the definition of "viability" might be too ambiguous. But it's indeed possible to make it more precise.

Doubtful.

It's no different from other legal definitions based on human development such as reaching adulthood. Although we can agree about what means for a person to be an adult, it may be necessary to decide on a concrete way to operationalize this such a hard age cutoff.

We have had this discussion in the past many times. Adulthood as we see it legally, is not a biological definition. There is nothing that magically makes you an adult at the 364th day and 23:59mins of your 17th birthday.
You are trying justify using a bad arbitrary time limit that is not based on biology to justify another bad arbitrary time limit that is not based on biology.

Does this situation entail a risk of loss of life or grievous harm for the pregnant person?

Does it matter at all? Adults can already make decisions that impact their life and/or health. You can reject an antibiotic for your pneumonia, you can reject an amputation for your necrotic toe and you can reject CPR if you go into cardiac arrest. The same woman from my example, cannot decline a blood transfusion to her newborn baby. So starting with this premise, a woman cannot reject a blood transfusion in behalf of her newborn baby, what are your thoughts about a pregnant woman rejecting a blood transfusion that could potentially save the pregnancy or fetal life? Should we force this transfusion on this scenario?
#15228510
XogGyux wrote:Development? None. However we are not talking about development at this point. To understand you have to realize of the difference between physical capacity and functional capacity. A computer might be physically capable of accessing the internet, however, even though all the components might be present, if the computer does not have electricity, it is functionally incapable of accessing the internet.
Likewise, a 37 week fetus might be functionally capable of having some degree of consciousness (and even this is debatable, we don't know for sure). However, for as long as it is within the environment of the uterus, with high levels of sedating hormones and high CO2 which basically keeps it asleep through the pregnancy, this fetus is functionally incapable of having consciousness. The same way you are functionally incable of having consciousness while on an operating room receiving anesthesia, the same way a computer is functionally incapable of accessing the internet while deprived of electricity.
Up to the time of birth, a fetus is either physically, functional or BOTH incapable of having consciousness. I'd argue you cannot be considered to be a person if you have never been conscious at all.


But the 37 week fetus can just be delivered, and that'd be it.

Do you think that someone in a vegetative state ceases to be a person? How about someone in a coma or who's just unconscious?

XogGyux wrote:Doubtful.


Why?

XogGyux wrote:We have had this discussion in the past many times. Adulthood as we see it legally, is not a biological definition. There is nothing that magically makes you an adult at the 364th day and 23:59mins of your 17th birthday.
You are trying justify using a bad arbitrary time limit that is not based on biology to justify another bad arbitrary time limit that is not based on biology.


Yet it's based partly on biology.

XogGyux wrote:Does it matter at all? Adults can already make decisions that impact their life and/or health. You can reject an antibiotic for your pneumonia, you can reject an amputation for your necrotic toe and you can reject CPR if you go into cardiac arrest. The same woman from my example, cannot decline a blood transfusion to her newborn baby. So starting with this premise, a woman cannot reject a blood transfusion in behalf of her newborn baby, what are your thoughts about a pregnant woman rejecting a blood transfusion that could potentially save the pregnancy or fetal life? Should we force this transfusion on this scenario?


But you couldn't reject COVID vaccination last year and expect no consequences, could you?
  • 1
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 62

A really good article. Is seems pretty objective. […]

January 6 Hearings LIVE

Sorry, I'll shut up, but here, I found my fave: […]

As Eric Weinstein says, Epstein was a construct.

@late We gave them something, that's for sure[…]